Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Chapman, 02-6833 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6833 Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6833 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARMAND CHAPMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-341, CA-01-1892-AM) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6833 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARMAND CHAPMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-341, CA-01-1892-AM) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Armand Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Armand Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude that Chapman has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Chapman, Nos. CR-98-341; CA-01-1892-AM (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 26, 2002 & entered Apr. 29, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer